SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to repair/replace (it is not possible to repair) the iphone with free of cost or refund of Rs.1,10,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- compensation and cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that complainant has purchased the mobile phone, iPhone XS, Model Name :IPHONE XZ, RAW 256GB SILVER IMEI/Serial No.357215090302038 valued Rs.1,10,000/- having warranty for two years ie. up to 04/04/2021. The complainant entrusted the mobile to OP No.1 on 09/03/2021 to repair with a complaint of ‘face ID not working’ and returned it to the complainant and stating that it is not eligible for warranty services since found liquid damage. As per specification of the mobile in dispute, is splash, water, and dust resistant. Rated IP68 (maximum depth of 2 meters up to 30 minutes) under IEC standard 60529. As per the specification of this mobile phone, it is water resistant, he has not used the phone under the water at any point of time and the reason stated by the OP No.1 rejected the warranty. Complainant stated that if there is any liquid damage to the phone, then it will affect the key pad and other internal electronic parts which may lead to the damage of the entire product. Complainant submitted that if the phone is having any liquid damage due to normal use, then it may occur due to manufacturing defects. In that case Ops are liable to replace the phone free of cost as the phone is under warranty period. The damage may be caused due to manufacturing defect and there may not have proper water seal to the camera portion. The refusal to carry out the repairing work to the above said iphone under warranty service is the deficiency in service on the part of OP 1. As OP2 is the country head of iphone products, he is also liable for the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Hence complainant is entitled to get the service of OPs in free of cost and they are liable to carry out the repairing work to above said iphone without any cost as phone is under warranty. Hence the complaint.
The OPs were duly served notices. Appeared and filed written version. OP No.1 contended that there is no privity of contract between the answering OP and complainant for general or warranty repair of device which is the subject matter of this dispute. This answering OP provided their services, as per their terms and condition, in agreement for services, between the manufacturing company without any fail and deficiency. This OP submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is an afterthought and filed with an ulterior motive to make undue gains from the answering OP. It is submitted that this OP is only a service provider of the 2nd OP under the name as Reliance ResQ. This OP is only collecting the devices that are manufactured by the 2nd OP, for sending it to the 2nd OP for repair services, as per the service and warranty terms and conditions, prevailing between the customers and the 2nd OP. As per specification of the mobile in dispute, is splash, water, and dust resistant and rated IP68 (maximum depth of 2 meters up to 30 minutes) under IEC standard 60529. It is related to manufacturing and specification of the device, which is to be answered by the manufacturer ie 2nd OP. This OP submits that, the complainant visited the service centre of this OP, at Kannur on 09/03/2021 with the complaint “ Face ID not working”. As per the Apple Repair process this OP had done the initial diagnosis in the iphone and found that the iphone Liquid contact Indicator is triggered (Become Red). As per apple repair policy, if any iPhone found LCI triggered is considered as liquid damage and the mobile is not eligible for Apple Limited warranty service and the customer has to proceed with paid service. Hence this OP had offered the exchange price to the customer as per Apple service policy. But complainant had refused the offer and demanded for free service under the warranty. This OP submits that, this OP is only responsible to collect and send the devices entrusted by the customers, to 2nd OP for the repair or replace, as per the warranty terms and conditions. The General and warranty services have to be provided by the 2nd OP. If there is any defects in the devices, that have to be repaired or replaced by the 2nd OP. This OP is not responsible for repair and replace of the devices. This OP submits that, the warranty policy clearly stating that if liquid contact Indicator (LCI) Triggered then Apple 12 year limited warranty is not eligible. There is no deliberate negligence or delay or deficiency in the service of this OP. The phone has no defects as stated in the complaint. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
2nd OP filed version stating that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone, iPhone XS, RAW 256GB SILVER bearing IMEI No.357215090302038(“phone”) on 05/04/2019. He had also purchased the Apple care protection plan bearing No.325267548377, which provides an extended period of warranty, valid up to 05/04/2021. It is submitted that, the complainant has been using the iphone for more than 18 months with no grievances or complaints. It is submitted that the iPhone XS is a premium model with advanced features. One of the features of the iPhone is that it provides superior level of water –resistance. The iPhone has an IP rating of IP68 wherein IP stands for Ingress protection, while ‘68’ refers to the level of protection. Further, Number ‘6’ in IP68 stands for protection against dust ingress while Number ‘8’ stands for protection against liquid ingress. Both are at the very highest level possible which means that the iPhone XS offer among the best dust and water-reistance possible. On 10/10/2020, the complainant contacted the customer care helpline number of the OP NO.2 and informed the Face ID of iPhone XS is not working and further informed that he had washed the iPhone under tap water and said iphone is water ‘resistant’ and not water proof. Further, also advised the complainant to approached the nearest AASP for further diagnosis. On 09/03/2021, the complainant approached the OP No.1, who is an Apple Authorized service Provider (‘AASP”) and informed that the Face Id of the iPhone is not working. The OP NO.1 conducted Visual Mechanical Inspection tests on the said iPhone and raised service record dated 09/03/2021. Further the service record dated 09/03/2021 clearly stated “Cosmetic Condition of product: Usage marks, LCI triggered near Sim Tray”. Upon further inspection of the iPhone that was submitted by the complainant, the OP N.1 found that, the iPhone had suffered a liquid damage. Since the iPhone has suffered liquid damage, it is not eligible for Ibn –warranty services and the said iPhone will have to be replaced under the exchange price. However complainant flatly declined to accept the said offer of the OP NO.1. Hence, the said iPhone was returned to the complainant after raising a delivery report dated 09/03/2021. In iPhoen XS model, the LCI is located at the centre of the iPhone and will activate when it comes it no contact with water or liquid containing water. The indicator’s colour is normally white or silver, but when it contacted water or liquid containing water, it will turn fully red. Further submits that the terms of warranty of the oP NO.2 is very clear that the damages caused to the iPhone by liquid is not covered under the Apple Terms of Warranty and the said iPhone is ineligible for free In –Warranty repairs. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
At the evidence stage, complainant has filed his chief affidavit and 4 documents. He has been examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A4. On the side of OPs service associate of OP No.1 filed his chief affidavit and was examined as Dw1 and marked Ext.B1 and B2. After that the learned counsel of complainant and learned counsel of OPs 1 and 2 filed their written argument notes.
We have perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by the parties, documents available and considered the submissions of the learned counsels of the parties.
As far as the complainant’s case is concerned, it is a fact that as per Ext.A1 invoice complainant has purchased the mobile phone valued Rs.1,10,000/- on 01/04/2019 having warranty for two years ie up to 01/04/2021. As per Ext.A2 delivery note complainant entrusted the mobile to OP No.1 on 09/03/2021 with a complaint of ‘face ID not working’. From Ext.A2 it is evident that the defects as alleged by the complainant arised within the warranty period. Ext.A2 further revealed “checked and found liquid damage, External LCI triggered, unit not eligible for warranty service, unit need to be replaced under exchange price. Out of warranty service offered to customer, customer declined due to estimate related, unit returned back to customer as it is.” Complainant alleged that as per technical specification of the mobile in dispute, ‘is splash, water, and dust resistant’. Rated IP68 (maximum depth of 2 meters up to 30 minutes and it is water resistant. For proving the said point complainant has submitted Ext.A4.
OPs version is that when the complainant approached with the complaint of Face ID not working, on initial diagnosis, found the iphone Liquid contact Indicator is triggered means liquid damage and the mobile is not eligible for Apple Limited warranty service and the customer has to proceed with paid service.
According to complainant though the mobile is water resistant, he has not used the phone under the water at any point of time and the reason stated by the OP No.1 rejected the warranty. Complainant pleaded that if there is any liquid damage to the phone, then it will affect the key pad and other internal electronic parts which may lead to the damage of the entire product. Complainant alleged that the damage may be caused due to manufacturing defects and there may not have proper water seal to the camera portion.
On scrutiny of the evidence of Dw1, he has deposed that in page (3). “Face Id ആ സമയത്ത് work ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്ന് നിങ്ങൾ check ചെയ്തോ? check ചെയ്തു. ആ സമയം Face Id work ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടോ?. work ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. Hardware, software issue കൊണ്ട് work ചെയ്യാതിരിക്കാം. Water seal - ന് complaint വന്നാലും വെള്ളം ഉള്ളിൽ കയറി ഫോണിന് complaint വരാം. Further stated that “ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് ഫോൺ അഴിച്ച് നോക്കാതെ വെളളം കയറിയോ എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കാൻ പറ്റുമോ? പറ്റും. ഫോണിെൻറ അകത്ത് വെള്ളം കയറിയാൽ പലഭാഗത്തും complaint വരും. ശരിയാണ്. 2 മീറ്റർ ആഴത്തിൽ അരമണിക്കൂർ ഫോൺ വെള്ളത്തിൽ മുക്കിവച്ചാൽ ഫോണിന് യാതൊരു കേടും സംഭവിക്കില്ല എന്നാണ് specification-ൽ പറയുന്നത്? അതെ.
Dw1 submitted that they came to a conclusion that the complaint was due to liquid contact on the basis of external diagnosis. Dw1 further deposed that the actual reason for trigger can be found only through Internal damage open.
Here there is no dispute that when the mobile was entrusted to OP No.1 for repair work, it was under warranty period and further the complainant of the mobile was not rectified free of cost. From Ext.A2 delivery report it is clear that, without doing any internal examination of the mobile to find out the actual reason for the complaint. OP No.1 returned the mobile with a report that “found liquid damage” and it is not eligible for warranty services and offered replace under exchange price. OP1 has produced the photo of a mobile (Ext.B2) to establish their contention about liquid damage. But we cannot confirm that the photo is of the disputed mobile. Though OP objected Ext.A1 invoice does not belongs to the disputed mobile, the Invoice Ext.A1 clearly described that the Apple I phone XS 256 GB. Hence though Ext.A1 complainant proved the purchase and it price.
Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the above mentioned circumstances, where the mobile has become defective within the warranty period and in that circumstances mental agony and harassment was happened to the complainant. We are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of both OPs 1 and 2. Hence complainant is entitled to get relief. From Ext.A1 the price of mobile is Rs.1,10,000/- purchased on 01/04/2019 and it is not in dispute that he has given the mobile to OP No.1 on 09/03/2021 ie after about 23 months from the purchase. Complainant has stated that the mobile in dispute is being used by him.
Considering the facts as stated above, we are of the view that complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed jointly and severally a) to repair and cure the defects of the iphone of the complainant for free of cost within two weeks after receiving the phone from the complainant. b) Otherwise Opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay Rs.75,000/- (considering depreciation of the product) to the complainant. C) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties 1 and 2 shall comply the order ‘b’ and ‘c’ portion jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which the Rs.75000+25000 carries interest 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provisions in Consumer Protection Act 2019. Complainant shall hand over the mobile to OP No.1 for repair work after receiving this order, if Opposite party ready to repair the mobile with free of cost. If Opposite party is ready to refund the amount Rs.75,000/- (b- portion), complainant shall return the mobile to Opposite party.
Exts.
A1- Invoice dated 01/04/2019 for Rs.5,699 Saudi riyal (photocopy) (with objection)
A2- Delivery report dated 09/03/2021 (with objection)
A3- Warranty card –online copy (with objection)
A4- iPhone XS-Technical specifications (with objection)
B1- Apple 1 year Ltd. warranty terms and conditions
B2- Photos produced by OP2
Pw1- Complainant
Dw1- Mudhun M M – Witness of OP2
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
